Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the explanation and the link Julie. The version of the GNSO 
Operating Procedures I was looking at is an older one found on this page: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/44157.

Thanks again.

Amr

On May 2, 2014, at 3:43 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Amr,
> 
> The Board does not have to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures.  
> They do have to approve changes to the ICANN Bylaws, which may result in 
> changes to the Operating Procedures, although that does not apply in this 
> case.  Thus, the changes the Council approved with respect to resubmission of 
> motions are considered to be final.  I have reviewed the current version of 
> the procedures document at: 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-26mar14-en.pdf and the section 
> 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 (page 11 and 12 of the document) on resubmission of a motion 
> and cannot see any redlining.  Do you have access to a version that shows 
> redlines?  If so, can you point me to it?  There should only be one version 
> of the document posted and it should be the final version.  There was, 
> however, when the Council was considering the changes a draft version that 
> contained redlining.  However, the final version is the one posted at the 
> link listed above.
> 
> Best regards,
> Julie
> 
> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 6:11 AM
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions 
> to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
> 
> Yeah…, I think so. Thanks Mary. It works out fine in both cases anyway.
> 
> One more question…, and excuse my inexperience :); Does the ICANN board need 
> to approve changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures after they are approved 
> by the Council? Does that have anything to do with the resubmission language 
> still being in red-line in the operating procedures document?
> 
> Thanks again, Mary.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On May 1, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Amr, yes; any proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures, 
>> including to the WG Guidelines, need to go out for public comment – and 
>> that’s the rub with the interplay here between the Resubmission of a Motion 
>> language (published for public comment and approved) and the 
>> Waiver/Exception proposal (not yet published). It may be awkward to send the 
>> Resubmission language out AGAIN for public comment so the more streamlined 
>> course of action would be to address the overlap in the Waiver/Exception 
>> language now. After the Waiver/Exception language is approved by the SCI, it 
>> will then need to go out for public comment – which we recommend be done 
>> together with any other proposed changes the SCI may wish to make, e.g. 
>> Voting by Email.
>> 
>> I hope this helps clarify … ?
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>> 
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> * One World. One Internet. *
>> 
>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 4:58 AM
>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: Consensus Call? (Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions 
>> to GNSO Operating Procedures: Revised Draft)
>> 
>>> Thanks Mary. One question: Wouldn’t the proposed changes here need to be 
>>> published for public comment as well? There are still changes being 
>>> recommended to the operating procedures, right? Does it make a difference 
>>> which section the reference to resubmitted motions lands?
>>> 
>>> Thanks again.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear SCI members,
>>>> 
>>>> Please find attached the latest version of the proposed language relating 
>>>> to Waivers/Exceptions for motions in the GNSO Operating Procedures. As 
>>>> noted in last week’s call, the Consensus Call for this issue will be 
>>>> conducted via this email list.
>>>> 
>>>> Note, however, that we are suggesting a slight change to the language 
>>>> circulated by Greg and discussed in the email thread below. In reviewing 
>>>> the proposed language prior to circulation for a Consensus Call, we noted 
>>>> that the suggested Explanation in Greg’s latest email (below) would entail 
>>>> a further change to the revised Resubmission of a Motion language in the 
>>>> GNSO Operating Procedures, which initial revisions were approved by the 
>>>> GNSO Council (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201403). As 
>>>> any further changes will have to be published for public comment, an 
>>>> alternative solution might be to add a sentence to the proposed 
>>>> Waivers/Exception language to address the concern voiced by Amr in an 
>>>> earlier email. 
>>>> 
>>>> Please indicate whether you, on behalf of your respective stakeholder 
>>>> groups and/or constituencies, support or do not support the attached 
>>>> proposed language. If in light of this email note you wish to discuss the 
>>>> issue further prior to concluding the Consensus Call, please indicate this 
>>>> as well.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you all! A second email relating to a Consensus Call for the 
>>>> separate issue of language relating to Working Group Consensus Levels will 
>>>> follow shortly.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Mary
>>>> 
>>>> Mary Wong
>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>>>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> 
>>>> * One World. One Internet. *
>>>> 
>>>> From: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM
>>>> To: "'Shatan, Gregory S.'" <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Amr Elsadr' 
>>>> <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, 
>>>> "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
>>>> Procedures: Revised Draft
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Greg and Amr.  This looks like a good solution to me as well.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>  
>>>>> RA
>>>>>  
>>>>> Ron Andruff
>>>>> RNA Partners
>>>>> www.rnapartners.com
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx 
>>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, 
>>>>> Gregory S.
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 20:51
>>>>> To: 'Amr Elsadr'
>>>>> Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
>>>>> Procedures: Revised Draft
>>>>>  
>>>>> I think the solution to this problem is to revise the language quoted 
>>>>> below and keep the waiver section as is.
>>>>>  
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>  
>>>>> “1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an 
>>>>> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not 
>>>>> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation 
>>>>> must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion 
>>>>> (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 10 
>>>>> calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be 
>>>>> reconsidered, unless the requirements for late submission in Section 
>>>>> 3.3.2 are also met). The explanation does not need to meet any 
>>>>> requirements other than being submitted in a timely manner.”
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>  
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:53 PM
>>>>> To: Shatan, Gregory S.
>>>>> Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
>>>>> Procedures: Revised Draft
>>>>>  
>>>>> Hi Greg and all,
>>>>>  
>>>>> I know I’ve brought this up repetitively and I hate being a nag, but 
>>>>> there’s still an inconvenient loophole in this text regarding 
>>>>> resubmission of motions. On its meeting of March 26th, 2014, the GNSO 
>>>>> Council approved the SCI recommendation to amend the GNSO Operating 
>>>>> Procedures by adding sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 detailing the guidelines of 
>>>>> motions being resubmitted. Section 4.3.3, claus number 1 reads as follows:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> “1. Explanation: The Councilor submitting the motion must also submit an 
>>>>>> explanation for the resubmission of the motion. The explanation need not 
>>>>>> accompany the motion when it is resubmitted; however, the explanation 
>>>>>> must be submitted no later than the deadline for submitting the motion 
>>>>>> (i.e., no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day 
>>>>>> 10 calendar days before the Council meeting at which the motion is to be 
>>>>>> reconsidered). The explanation does not need to meet any requirements 
>>>>>> other than being submitted in a timely manner.”
>>>>>  
>>>>> If the SCI determines that it would like the 10-day rule waiver to also 
>>>>> apply to motions being resubmitted (and not exclusively to motions being 
>>>>> submitted for the first time) in its recommendation to the Council, then 
>>>>> there needs to be clarifying text to that effect. If the SCI does not 
>>>>> recommend that the waiver should apply to resubmitted motions, then no 
>>>>> further action is necessary. If the former is true, and not the latter, 
>>>>> the the way I read it, the required clarification should either be added 
>>>>> as a fourth bullet to 3.3.2 referencing 4.3.3, or perhaps an added 
>>>>> numbered item to 4.3.4 (Limitations and Exceptions to Resubmission of a 
>>>>> Motion) referring to the waiver rule in 3.3.2. Without these changes, I 
>>>>> can’t see how the text of the operating procedures will support the 
>>>>> waiver rule being applied to resubmitted motions in the event that the 
>>>>> need arises.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>  
>>>>> On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> As discussed today on the SCI call, I agree with Marika’s comment below, 
>>>>> and I have deleted the sentence in question.  In the attached draft, I 
>>>>> have accepted all the changes from the prior draft and then deleted that 
>>>>> sentence.  There were no other comments on the list or on the call. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> I would suggest that this draft should be considered final (subject only 
>>>>> to “accepting” the deletion of the sentence so that this is a clean 
>>>>> document) for purposes of moving to the next step with this amendment to 
>>>>> the Operating Procedures.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>  
>>>>> Gregory S. Shatan 
>>>>> Partner 
>>>>> Reed Smith LLP
>>>>> 599 Lexington Avenue
>>>>> New York, NY 10022
>>>>> 212.549.0275 (Phone)
>>>>> 917.816.6428 (Mobile)
>>>>> 212.521.5450 (Fax)
>>>>> gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> www.reedsmith.com
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:34 AM
>>>>> To: Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
>>>>> Procedures: Revised Draft
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thanks, Greg. I'm still not clear to why it would say 'For the avoidance 
>>>>> of doubt, if the requirements above are not met, the motion shall not be 
>>>>> considered “submitted”? Why can't it be considered submitted, but just 
>>>>> not eligible to be considered for a vote at the meeting? The current 
>>>>> practice is also that if a motion is submitted after the deadline it may 
>>>>> get discussed, just not voted on during the meeting, but there is no need 
>>>>> to resubmit it for the next meeting as it is already considered submitted 
>>>>> and automatically carried over. Maybe I'm missing something?
>>>>>  
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Marika 
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: <Shatan>, "Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: Thursday 17 April 2014 03:40
>>>>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Waivers/Exceptions to GNSO Operating 
>>>>> Procedures: Revised Draft
>>>>>  
>>>>> All:
>>>>>  
>>>>> Following up on our last meeting, I attach a revised version of the 
>>>>> amendment to the Operating Procedures dealing with “late” submission of a 
>>>>> motion, with my revisions marked in “track changes.” 
>>>>>  
>>>>> I look forward to your comments.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>  
>>>>> Gregory S. Shatan
>>>>> Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group
>>>>> IP | Technology | Media
>>>>> ReedSmithLLP
>>>>> The business of relationships
>>>>> 599 Lexington Avenue
>>>>> New York, NY 10022
>>>>> 212.549.0275 | Phone
>>>>> 917.816.6428 | Mobile
>>>>> 212.521.5450 | Fax
>>>>> gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> www.reedsmith.com
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> * * *
>>>>> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and 
>>>>> may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are 
>>>>> on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and 
>>>>> then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use 
>>>>> it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank 
>>>>> you for your cooperation.
>>>>> * * *
>>>>> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you 
>>>>> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice 
>>>>> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not 
>>>>> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of 
>>>>> (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable 
>>>>> state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to 
>>>>> another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>>>>> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
>>>>> <Motion waiver draft language - 22 April 2014.DOC>
>>>>>  
>>>> <Proposed Language f#1D7F33E.doc>
>>> 
>